Author
Topic: Harmony Korine (Read 33127 times)

The more I watch 'Kids' the more brilliant I find it to be. Korine was pretty young when he wrote this, right? Wowza of a script really. No plot devices, cliche's, just straight up realness. Unflinching and honest (I think I've read that on every advertisement for it but its true). I thought he wrote 'Bully' too but was wrong but I start to wonder if it would've turned out any different! Its pretty 'Kids'-like. Really wanna see 'Ken Park'.

i saw ken park at the toronto festival two years ago. this film is far out and the actors all took one hell of a risk. i guess they really didn't have a career before this film but it might just stop dead in their tracks. kinda like logan's role in Nowhere by greg araki.

The only real thread for Julien Donkey-Boy was locked, for good reason I imagine, so I may as well post this here. Just saw Julien Donkey-Boy. Just loved Julien Donkey-Boy. Greater than Gummo, though they're both great films. My comments for this are pretty much the same as Gummo. Korine simply improves on a previously-established formula, and churns out a great, moving film. What godardian has said about his visual style is what I admire most. Anthony Dod Mantle has such great skill as a cinematographer. It is really encouraging that this was all done on DV, and I actually like the grainy look of the film, although the handheld parts at the beginning were a bit disorienting, and the editing in some places was fuzzy and choppy (probably purposefully). The score of the film was so beautiful, but I'm a bit confused (and I hope someone can clear this up for me), because I thought that no non-diagetic music was allowed in a Dogme 95 film, and I could've sworn there were a few times where the score was coming from a source not on screen. Either way, these are the kinds of films I want to make.

The ending was beautiful, and I like that in this movie there seem to have been some actual themes recurring here, unlike Gummo which was simply random scenes from a town (though that could be considered a theme as well). Here we have the ice skating motif and the pervasiveness of religion, all building up to create this underlying intangible emotion that one can't put into words. That's what film is capable of, and when it works, it's really powerful. To me, that's what we have here, and I think if Korine channels this, he could make something really special one day. I doubt it'll be Ken Park, though, but that's because Clark had his dirty paws on it.

Best line from the film (after Chris's father instructs him to balance on a glass, pick up a cigarette in his mouth and smoke it with grace to learn balance as a wrestler):

CHRIS: But I don't smoke.FATHER: Eh, you'll learn that.

See this film if you haven't yet, and if you care at all about independent, unconventional cinema. Don't be afraid about what you may have heard about any shock value, lack of plot, or Korine's "hucksterism," relationship to Larry Clarke, or anything like that. They two are totally different voices; Korine has talent while Clark does not. ***½ (8/10)

EDIT: As I was walking home, it just dawned on me what sets these films apart, and really bothers me about most films. It's the inclusion of the (traditional) dramatic scene, or at least a film that is structured to somewhat closely follow that pattern. Even at the most unconventional, most films follow this structure where scenes pay off in a dramatic fashion. There's some line, some look, some shot, some cut that indicates the scene is over, and the story arc continues. In Korine's film, this isn't so, and that's what sets them apart. There is no punchline. His films simply exist, and this is what makes them so real, so unlike anything else.

I'll elaborate later - but let me just say that I take back anything negative I have said about Harmony Korine and that he is one of the three best young filmmaker's working today along with PTA and DGG, hands down. I will elaborate later, I promise.

ebeaman you are so full of grandoise statements like that when you the mood catches you right, arent you? why dont you just say he's one of your favorite, and not one of the best? or atleast elaborate on what you think is so great about him, and why you feel you can justify that statement.

Logged

Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

I'll elaborate later - but let me just say that I take back anything negative I have said about Harmony Korine and that he is one of the three best young filmmaker's working today along with PTA and DGG, hands down. I will elaborate later, I promise.

ebeaman you are so full of grandoise statements like that when you the mood catches you right, arent you? why dont you just say he's one of your favorite, and not one of the best? or atleast elaborate on what you think is so great about him, and why you feel you can justify that statement.

Yikes! What's wrong with a young guy being enthusiastic about film? This is what I'm sick of about talking about movies -- Justify is a word that they use in stuffy ass college courses. If I see someone genuinely excited about something, "just because" is the best (and most truthful) answer there is to give.

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Hehehe, I never went. Sometimes I visit friends, and enjoy the eye candy of lovely university gals, and use their wonderful stocked library to get film books.

I sat in on a film class there once. It was a disgrace. But that's probably because Edmonton Alberta isn't exactly known for the film scholars it pumps out...

oops, sorry, back to Harmony Korine [/code]

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

I'll elaborate later - but let me just say that I take back anything negative I have said about Harmony Korine and that he is one of the three best young filmmaker's working today along with PTA and DGG, hands down. I will elaborate later, I promise.

ebeaman you are so full of grandoise statements like that when you the mood catches you right, arent you? why dont you just say he's one of your favorite, and not one of the best? or atleast elaborate on what you think is so great about him, and why you feel you can justify that statement.

Yikes! What's wrong with a young guy being enthusiastic about film? This is what I'm sick of about talking about movies -- Justify is a word that they use in stuffy ass college courses. If I see someone genuinely excited about something, "just because" is the best (and most truthful) answer there is to give.

You'll never develop or further your ability to articulate and make your case, though, if you don't try to have insight into why you like/dislike something. I mean, if "just because" is the best answer, why are any of us here at all, talking about films? It may be the most "truthful" answer if by "truthful" you mean "spontaneous," (they're hardly synonymous), but it's by far the least satisfactory to anyone, including- I'd imagine- the person who's saying it.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

I'd prefer that SOOOO incredibly much to the "currrazy quirkiness" of someone like Alexander Payne....that shit can get on my nerves. Especially "About Schmidt", I hate that fucking movie now. It is so FLAT and boring and lord have mercy is it NERDY!!! It's the nerdiest fucking movie I've ever seen. The new guy that replaces Warren especially! Oh my god, I wanted to slap that guy. I mean, I'm a nerd myself but even I'm no that bad. And oh my god, that winnebago campout scene....oh my god, that is enough to make me wanna vomit....with that freakin guy saying "Ahoy" like he's on some sort of ship or some shit.....oh my god, I hate that movie.

uhh, i think they're supposed to be nerdy. it's a comedy, or atleast a dramedy. the characters are supposed to be funny.

Quote from: ebeaman

See see, they actually have CINEMATIC quality to them while Alexander Payne and Whit Stillman just fucking set the camera up and cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut......AHHHHHH!!! Somebody shoot me! I mean, I understand what a minimalist style is but give me a fucking break! Go write a play if you want to do that shit! This is a different medium! Use it!!!

word of advice: DONT RENT TOKYO STORY! you wont like it.

Quote from: ebeaman

PTA, DGG, Harmony, and a few others are refusing to let people like Whit and Alex and David Fincher and Larry Clark and Christopher Nolan kill cinema. If that isn't enough of a reason for me to call Harmony one of the best, then fine, he is just one of my personal favorites....problem solved. I don't know what grandiose means but I'm definitely full of more statements like the one you quoted, yes. I hope that doesn't bother you because nothing you do bothers me at all man, I don't intend to start any trouble.

well, i dont understand how david fincher and christopher nolan are 'killing cinema', so maybe you can help elaborate on that too. i'm not jumping on you for your tastes. you can like whatever you want, but when you make bold statements proclaiming something to be THE WAY IT IS, sounding like pauline kael, i want to know why you feel that way. there is no trouble. i appreciate your enthusiasm for movies, but i need to know how you justify (sorry, it fits), saying something is THE BEST. if you had said your favorite, i wouldnt have thought twice. but if you're putting down something and boosting up something else like its a fact, i want to know why so i can respond if i need to.

also: grandiose-Characterized by greatness of scope or intent; grand. See Synonyms at grand. -Characterized by feigned or affected grandeur; pompous.

Logged

Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

I absolutely adore About Schmidt. How could something so incisive come across as "flat" to anyone? Honestly, how else do people in campers behave? Those scenes rang true, were insightful, and also had the bonus of being humorous.

I also think Whit Stillman is pretty swell; he's definitely focusing on a specific milieu, but I think he has a healthy dose of self-deprecation and humor. I find his films and the people in them very appealing- in their own way, they're struggling the same as anyone else.

And I will say that when it comes to using words like "nerdy," you're only going to show your opponents in debate that you have an impoverished critical vocabulary and are too inexperienced or inarticulate to have a valid argument. This is why, regardless of your specific opinion, you simply have got to learn to articulate yourself. Use words like "nerdy," or say "just because," and you'll be written off as intellectually inferior (or merely cowardly) by the very people you need to be contradicting on equal terms. If you ever want your opinion to be taken seriously, that is.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

me too. and it's not ebeaman, that i NEED you to like About Schmidt, because we all have our own tastes/opinions. but for you to make the presumptuous statement that alexander payne is 'killing cinema'. c'mon, you may not dig his movies, but is he really putting out a product so heinous that he's making things worse for all the moviemakers out there? i dont think so, and thats why i dont care for grand statements like that one which is going to cause challenging responses like mine for you to make a damn good argument as to why you feel that way. personally i dont think Korine is doing anything different than things that have already been done a thousand times by other filmmakers. he may be doing something different from what plays at the multiplex today, but so are tons of other filmmakers, and i dont think doing something a little different from whats out there warrants being one of the best filmmakers. its going to take a little more than that to convince me.

Logged

Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ebeaman, i agree with you about korine. i dont agree about payne but who gives a fuck. but i could have sworn you used to talk about alexander payne in a very positive light....just because you've discovered korine and how great he is, dont let that make you look at other films any differently. just because gummo is the way it is and you love it, don't let that sour your taste against ABOUT SCHMIDT or anything, cuz like you said, you hate that movie NOW......don't let one great movie close you off to maybe five other that may be just a notch beneath it....but you're right...gummo is pretty brilliant isnt it?

ahh i just worry...

Logged

"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."

not to get off subject, but did anyone see BULLY? that movie was pretty trippy.

I thought it was a bad movie, and Clark's worst movie by far. I find Another Day in Paradise got underrated and unfairly ignored, probably because it wasn't sensationalistic enough. That's all Bully was, wasn't it? Cheap sensationalism with terrible acting and shockingly haphazard, bland visuals for Clark, who has been known to display a great sense of framing and composition when he feels like it.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

And I will say that when it comes to using words like "nerdy," you're only going to show your opponents in debate that you have an impoverished critical vocabulary and are too inexperienced or inarticulate to have a valid argument. This is why, regardless of your specific opinion, you simply have got to learn to articulate yourself. Use words like "nerdy," or say "just because," and you'll be written off as intellectually inferior (or merely cowardly) by the very people you need to be contradicting on equal terms. If you ever want your opinion to be taken seriously, that is.

Well, I don't think it's any secret that I'm not the sharpest guy on the site as far as eloquence or even maturity as a whole goes but when I'm provoked, I do try and explain myself. I don't ever debate unless I'm provoked. It's just not something I like to do and frankly, it's not something I really care about being labeled as bad at doing. It means nothing to me. I guess I'd rather gush over a movie with a friend then argue with them about one. I come here for that shit man. I know it's easy but I'm an unconfrontational person both physically and verbally, even on the terms of simple debates. I feel the same about analyzing movies, I just don't get anything out of it. It depresses me to do it....just like debating about them does. I don't know, that's just me. It's cool for the people that like to do it and are good at it, I like reading what they have to say more than giving my own input. I was always in the middle row in the ol' health class debates....always always neutral....ONLY unless I'm provoked as I was here. I will always give anybody the respect to reply to a plea of elaboration on my part. Other than that, I like to just hang out pretty much. I have the personality of the guy at work that just saw "Torque" and loved it except I'm into everybody from Godard to Spielberg man....that's what I am. Adults that I meet are always shocked that I have knowledge or any awareness at all of pre 1990's film....I'm that same cliche, hormone driven teenager that serves you your Big Macs, trust me, I just somehow fell into this obsession with cinema....don't ask me to explain why or how. I'm nothing more than that. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert. When I say something is "the best", it's just my way of saying I love it really, I'm not trying to be Pauline Kael. Remember, when your reading my posts, you are reading the interpretations of a 17 year old, there is going to be words like "nerdy" in there and I hope you don't see it as lazy or rustic cause it's really me trying my hardest, no joke.

That's one of the things I've always liked about this site, that you CAN just hang out, you don't have to be an expert like on TalkBack.....literally the only requirement is that you have to love film.....you barely even have to like PTA anymore. And as far as I know, you darn sure don't have to be an ace at articulating what you feel or at least you don't have to debate if you don't want to around here....it's ok to just fuck around, right? I mean, I don't think I HAVE to learn to articulate myself...at least I hope not. People know how I am too well here after all. So anyway, I hope it's ok if I stick around for a little while.

You don't have to, but I wouldn't call a wholesale dismissal of a film non-confrontational, particularly when you do it here. Passive-aggressive, maybe?

I guess my whole point was: If you're going to assert something in no uncertain terms, as you did on About Schmidt, it's pretty important to be able to back it up. Otherwise, of course, you should be able to just hang out. No-one should come after you unless you come after them (and apparently someone did come after you first, I dunno- I only saw your post and then the responses).

But, you know, you shouldn't expect to be able to say, "About Schmidt was terrible, the NERDIEST film!" and then for people to think you're not up for discussing/debating it, or at least explaining why you respond to the film that way. If you don't set forth a strong (not to say harsh) opinion like that, no-one will expect you to "justify" it. BUT... I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ask someone to explain their opinion when they volunteer it, particularly when it's such a strong and negative one.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."